This graph is important

[Lief 🗽]

(methodology)

[angus]

Interesting.  That 1% difference in the years beginning 2012 amounts to about 15 billion dollars per year.  That doesn't corresponds to the amount of revenue that would be paid by the 250K plus earners, because the tax revenue for those years is about 2.5 trillion dollars per year, and the 250K plus group pays roughly half that, or 1.25 trillion per year.  I suppose it's a combination of business income differences and spending differences.  Note that under both plans, the national debt will be nearly equal to the aggregate GDP by 2020.  That means we'll only be paying interest at current income tax rates.

They're all big spenders, apparently.  This should get passed around more.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Interesting.  That 1% difference in the years beginning 2012 amounts to about 15 billion dollars per year.  That doesn't corresponds to the amount of revenue that would be paid by the 250K plus earners, because the tax revenue for those years is about 2.5 trillion dollars per year, and the 250K plus group pays roughly half that, or 1.25 trillion per year.  I suppose it's a combination of business income differences and spending differences.  Note that under both plans, the national debt will be nearly equal to the aggregate GDP by 2020.  That means we'll only be paying interest at current income tax rates.

They're all big spenders, apparently.  This should get passed around more.

1% is 150 billion.

[angus]

Interesting.  That 1% difference in the years beginning 2012 amounts to about 15 billion dollars per year.  That doesn't corresponds to the amount of revenue that would be paid by the 250K plus earners, because the tax revenue for those years is about 2.5 trillion dollars per year, and the 250K plus group pays roughly half that, or 1.25 trillion per year.  I suppose it's a combination of business income differences and spending differences.  Note that under both plans, the national debt will be nearly equal to the aggregate GDP by 2020.  That means we'll only be paying interest at current income tax rates.

They're all big spenders, apparently.  This should get passed around more.

1% is 150 billion.

Ah, yes, the extra power of ten does make a difference.  But the point still holds that this is only a fraction of the difference.  And the greater point made in the graph is certainly striking.  I've since read the methodology link, and it's a bit over-edited, but it looks like lots of assumptions and wiggle room is there.  Hard to say how it falls out.  They're estimating quite a bit, so take it with a grain of salt.  Interesting graph, all the same.

[Dgov]

CFAP?  Aren't these the people who think cutting taxes hurts the US economy?

[tpfkaw]

CFAP?  Aren't these the people who think cutting taxes hurts the US economy?

Yes, and their tax estimates for this are absurd.  I fail to see how not raising taxes causes tax receipts to decrease as a percent of GDP from their current point.

[Beet]

Yeah, unfortunately, citing a CFAP is like citing a Heritage Foundation study. While you can't exactly debunk it, it's just not as convincing as if it were coming from a non-partisan organization. But good to know that the claim is being made, at least. In the overall picture they're probably spot on in that no one has a plan to fix the budget right now.

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

so Obama's budget has the deficit hold steady for one year, and then halve in 2 years? presumably, this is to give him a year to restore the economy to pre-dotcom bubble levels with unemployment at 0.2 %

[Free Palestine]

Being better from an economic standpoint doesn't necessarily make it a good thing.  Banning slavery probably had more negative economic effects than not banning slavery, for instance.